Does anyone want to try to defend these Republican assholes?

Think the title of this post is harsh or inappropriate? Well, watch this clip from the December 13, 2010, episode of the Daily Show.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Lame-as-F@#k Congress
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog</a> The Daily Show on Facebook

So, does anybody want to try to defend these assholes?

Major health care update

One Judge has declared the individual mandate unconstitutional.

Recall that in my somewhat lengthy post about The Republicans and Health Care I said "Now, back to the individual mandate. The Republicans claim that it is unconstitutional. They may be right." And now a U.S. District Judge in Virginia has ruled that the individual mandate is unconstitutional. Here's the report from the Washington Post (as of 1:48 PM CST):

In a 42-page opinion, Hudson said the provision of the law that requires most individuals to get insurance or pay a fine by 2014 is an unprecedented expansion of federal power that cannot be supported by Congress's power to regulate interstate trade.

"Neither the Supreme Court nor any federal circuit court of appeals has extended Commerce Clause powers to compel an individual to involuntarily enter the stream of commerce by purchasing a commodity in the private market," he wrote. "In doing so, enactment of the [individual mandate] exceeds the Commerce Clause powers vested in Congress under Article I [of the Constitution.]

Hudson is the first judge to rule that the individual mandate is unconstitutional. He said, however, that portions of the law that do not rest on the requirement that individuals obtain insurance are legal and can proceed. Hudson indicated there was no need for him to enjoin the law and halt its implementation, since the mandate does not go into effect until 2014.

So now what are the Republicans in Congress going to do?

I am going to stick to my previous prediction that the Republicans will not seek to repeal the PPACA through legislation but will instead pursue the judicial route. In addition to what I said in the last section of my lengthy post, I will add something I told someone yesterday--with a little addition. I said "Moreover, there is still a chance that the mandate will be declared unconstitutional. That is the avenue the Republicans will push the hardest because it does not entail Congress having to take any [direct] action." Now the Republicans can say "See? It's not us that shot down health care. The thing was unconstitutional." This has several distinct advantages for the GOP. 1) No one can blame them for repealing the PPACA. 2) They really don't have to spend time and energy trying for a repeal. 3) Instead, they can use their time and energy to try to pressure the Dems --and most especially Obama--to come up with something new. And given Obama's past history (especially the tax deal), I'd say that strategy has a high chance of success.

That strategy is certainly what I would pursue if I was a Republican, particularly since Judge Hudson 1) declared only the mandate unconstitutional and 2) did not enjoin enforcement of any of the rest of the PPACA.

The problem for the Republicans in terms of repeal is that the only reflexively objectionable portion of the PPACA is the individual mandate (primarily because of the penalty involved). It's kind of hard to argue that the consumer protections and the health insurance exchanges are really bad. In other words, trying to repeal the rest of the PPACA is going to be an uphill climb. Because of that and because of Obama's lack of backbone in dealing with the Republicans, the GOP would be better served by continuing to apply indirect political pressure to get changes in the PPACA.

So now what are the Democrats going to do?

Tough to say. The problem for them is that the non-mandate portions of the PPACA--such as the consumer protections and exchanges--constituted the reform provisions (to the extent there was reform), but the individual mandate was the thing that could have made the whole system eventually succeed. In order for the exchanges to eventually do what they are designed to do, insurers have to offer good and fair policies via the exchanges, and wth the individual mandate the insurance companies would have incentive to do that. Without the individual mandate, it could very well make more business sense for the insurance companies to stay out of the exchanges (and under the PPACA they have that option). Also, the individual mandate was the trade off for all the consumer protection provisions in the PPACA--and those apply to all insurance policies. Thus, the insurance companies could start trying to weaken those consumer protections.

Thus, I am guessing that the Dems will try to keep those consumer protections in place. What I'm not sure about is whether Obama is going to take up that fight. More on that in a bit...

Some people might think that this opens the door for a revisit of the public option. Indeed, I thought previously that a repeal of the PPACA could present such a possibility. Now I am not so sure. Republicans hate the public option more than they do the individual mandate, so any attempt to put the public option back on the table is going to be extremely difficult. Also, Obama has pretty much abandoned the idea of a public option. Not only did he bail on it during the legislative process, he absolutely threw under the bus anyone who wants to support it now or in the future. He did that during his hissy fit press conference the day after the tax deal. In defending his deal with the GOP on tax cuts, he said the following:

So this notion that somehow we are willing to compromise too much reminds me of the debate that we had during health care. This is the public option debate all over again. So I pass a signature piece of legislation where we finally get health care for all Americans, something that Democrats had been fighting for for a hundred years, but because there was a provision in there that they didn’t get that would have affected maybe a couple of million people, even though we got health insurance for 30 million people and the potential for lower premiums for 100 million people, that somehow that was a sign of weakness and compromise.

In other words, "I got insurance for everyone and lower premiums, so anyone who wanted the public option should kiss my ass and be thankful for the chance." Obama has ensured that politically speaking he cannot ever advocate a public option again, AND he has shown that he will scold any Democrat who ever does so. Without Presidential backing there is absolutely no way the public option ever has a chance of becoming law.

The way that Obama basically gave into the Republicans in the tax deal (and he did--a topic I will discuss in another post) and the way he went after members of his own party in that post-tax deal press conference indicate to me that he is not going to support Congressional Dems in anything they want to do that meets Republican resistance. So, I am not at all sure that Obama will fight to keep the consumer protection provisions of the PPACA.

Given all of the above, I am not sure what the Democrats are going to do--other than fight the individual mandate battle in the Courts.

So now what are the Courts going to do?

This is a bit of a complicated matter, and I will either address it in a subsequent post or add that discussion to this post. Stay tuned...

Obama's lack of change I can believe in--an overview

During the 2008 campaign I had many Republicans ask me whether I agreed with all of Obama's policy positions. I said "no," which prompted questions about why I was voting for him. Well, the #1 reason was "He's not crazy John McCain and Sarah Palin is not his running mate." Then I went on to explain that I felt that Obama's message of "Change" was not primarily about policy but process. What I mean by that is a change in the process of how things operate in Washington--a change from blind partisanship, rancor, obscurity in government, a lack of substance, etc. I would then tell people that if Obama truly made that "change" a priority, I would support him, but if he did not make a significant effort in that regard, I would not support him. I also said that I did not know whether he would actually work for such "change."

Well, as far as I can tell, he has utterly failed to work for the change I can believe in. Now I know what some of you Democrats are thinking..."How could Obama do anything with the asshole Republicans behaving like they have." Let me be clear. The Republicans have been assholes, but that does not get Obama off the hook, and here's why. The Republicans did not force Obama to operate his administration in much the same way that George W. Bush operated his. The Republicans did not force Obama to continue some of the same policies as the Bush administration. The Republicans did not force Obama to make the amazingly stupid tactical and strategic decisions he has made--and the big one is pursuing health reform when he did. The Republicans did not force Obama to choose to keep talking about about compromise and "reaching out" when the Republicans blatantly showed time and again that they were not going to compromise or engage in actual bipartisanship. The Republicans did not force Obama to show such a lack of resolve and courage to stand up and fight.

In subsequent posts I am going to discuss all of this, and I will start with how Obama has continued what Bush started.

A bit of a diversion from bashing Republicans

For the last week or so, I have been too busy to finish up my next couple of posts explaining my predictions as to what the Republicans will do for the next two years, and just as I was about to get back to that, the deal between the GOP and Obama over the Bush tax cuts came down.

In light of that, I have decided it is time to post some things that tear into Obama.

Here's my take in a nutshell: Obama has made one strategic or tactical dumbass blunder after another, and he has absolutely no backbone. He needs to grow a pair, and it ain't going to happen.

I have held this view for quite a while, but I became convinced of it because of the tax cut deal. I am not necessarily going to argue that extending all the Bush tax cuts is right or wrong. Instead, I am going to focus on what this deal and all the other mistakes and lack of action by Obama says about him as President.

While I am working on my own rant, check out this assessment from Keith Olbermann. I agree with much of what he says, in particular his assessment of the Obama administration and his emotion regarding that.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy